from the gi-joe? dept

Benny6Toes alerts us to the news that a children's advocacy group is demanding that the FCC block a new cartoon show that uses a character from shoe company Skechers' advertisements as a part of the series, claiming that it would be the equivalent of a 30-minute commercial, which is against the requirements of the Children's Television Act. The group claims: "the show could pave the way for Ronald McDonald, Tony the Tiger and other iconic cartoon pitchmen to become stars of their own series."

Indeed, but as Benny notes: "After all, what are cartoons for Transformers, G.I. Joe (does that show my age?), Pokemon, or dozens of other kids shows for if not to sell related merchandise?" Saturday morning cartoons have been filled with half-hour long "advertisements" for merchandise for years. More to the point, Benny points out that isn't this really something for parents to decide, rather than the FCC:

But here's a better question: even if it is a 30 minute advertisement, should the FCC (or any government agency) be able to stop a show for that reason? Soap operas, though not targeted at children, were sponsored in whole by specific companies when they originally debuted on radio. That's why they're called, "soap operas."

Shouldn't the parents be able to say, "no," to their children?

Yes, people get annoyed at how commercial children's programming has become, but is that really the FCC's job to deal with it?